Taiwan Rejects US Copyright Extension Demands

An anonymous reader writes "Taiwan has rejected the US's demand to extend copyrights from 50 years to 70 years. Here's the news article on the Mercury News."

Comments

This first post

[Anonymous Coward]

is copyrighted for 70 years??!

Re:This first post

[jms]

Absolutely not! It's an anonymously published work, which fully qualifies for copyright protection.

Re:This first post

[Courageous]

It's insignificant as a work, so of course there is no copyright, you yahoo.

C//

Re:This first post

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is not an insignificant work since it has seeded a scholarly debate, that has so far accrued at least five insights, regarding the boundaries of copyright protection. Ergo, it qualifies.

Oh, wait. I forgot that the discussion is on Slashdot. Never mind, that trumps it with insignificance.

Re:This first post

[harper18]

Hey, knock yourself out. While the tag line may say "Anonymous Coward," I suspect the system still remembers who actually posted it, even if you have to trace it back to an IP address (granted, that's not the most accurate way of doing things--especially with the PPP effect--but I'm just saying that some sort of imprinting is going on).

However, if you've read the OSDN terms of service, owning the copyright on your post may be moot. You've already granted them the irrevocable and fully sublicensable right to do anything they want with your material, and this is standard with any corporate-owned message board/community.

Re:This first post

[mocm]

Sorry to hear you died today. Maybe your heirs can profit from this fine piece of literature

Re:This first post

[jms]

This is not offtopic.

Copyright on works produced by individuals lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. The poster is simply noting that, if the author asserts that his copyright is good for "70 years", this implies that the author is now dead. Perhaps, having achieved first post, he considered his life to be complete!

Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[billstr78]

I'm with the protesting students. Haven't the heirs of these long since dead artists recieved enough royalties from thier work? I am all for *certain* people getting paid for what they create, but the patent holders need to take some cues from Linus Trovolds and learn how to sustain on the satisfaction of millions gleaning pure joy from your creation. Not Money.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be nice if they would take a cue

but since they wont. they need to accept the FACT that copyrights are supposed to be LIMITED, they are going to be limited or else they will be ignored in their entirity.

music piracy largely exists because people already crossed that line by downloading some songs. it doesnt take much more to never cross back to the right side of the tracks.

oh well. the corps will learn, or they will collapse

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[SN74S181]

I guess I don't get it.

The creation of Linus Torvalds is quite a good thing, but 'gleaning pure joy'???

I'm not trying to belittle anything, but Linus is also a rather modest person in many ways.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[mumblestheclown]

Patents != Copyrights.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[hey!]

It's not the heirs of the people who did the work who hold the copyrights -- it's the companys they sold their work to.

It sounds0 to me that you are somehow against posthumous copyright. There is a good reason for there to be some posthumous copyright -- it enables authors to enjoy some of the future value their work will generate within their lifetime.

However, once the copyright has been effectively relinquished by the author, either by actual sale of the copyright or by granting of exclusive licenses to a corporation, there is little rational reason for a copyright term more than ten years, at least if you think the purpose of copyright is to reward authors. Events more than ten years out simply don't factor into any corporate decisions, and therefore do not contribute to the price authors receive from their works.

The position of creative people with respect to copyright is different from corporate entities -- it is more balanced. While the ability to claim exclusive benefits from their own works are good for them, they are restricted from working with other author's materials. It follows that copyright terms over ten years (except for material that remains within the full control of the author), are a pure evil for authors, since its restricts their ability to create on one hand, and compensates them with nothing on the other.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[fferreres]

Wow, that makes a lot of sense. Well phrased. So it all boils down to what is it that they want to do:

ie: companies/individuals of a country have very valuable assets, which they have been enjoying for 45 years, why not want to keep the revenue for 25 more years? If they lose it, then your country loses that copyright to the "world". So hence, trying to push foreing countries to accept US mandated laws.

All in all, I think much of the problems in the the world economy is each country has to protect their own assets, who cares if it is right or wrong to have a company that bough the copyright from a now dead guy, and that didn't pay a dime for next 20 years of revenue (which 10 years ago would have been priced near $0 as you say), actually profits or not exclusively from it?

The only solution i can foresee is to have the copyright extended to the goverment, and use the copyright in the best way possible. But we also know the goverment can't handle things. Maybe attach some general public copyright with certain restrictions (ie: using it, you are bound to the terms of a license which benefits the entire American population)?

If there where no countries, you'd see regions pushing the World Goverment, to accept these licenses. And the regions pushing it would be the ones having the most valuable copyright assets (and it wouldn't matter to them if those are fair, the author is dead or they have already profited more than they have paid for).

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[fferreres]

I mean, the problem here is that your region is better of trying to fuck up societies rights in general, so the copyright owner, that produces / lives / contributes to a given region can keep doing it.

That would be the bottom line of the why. If this wantn't the case, it would be 100% lobby to go against the entire population desires, and to put a burden to the global economic efficiency.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[Servo5678]

the patent holders need to take some cues from Linus Trovolds and learn how to sustain on the satisfaction of millions gleaning pure joy from your creation. Not Money.

Marge: "Well, Homer, maybe you can get some consolation in the fact that something you created is making so many people happy."
Homer: [sickly sweet] "Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the Magical Man from Happy-Land, in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane!"
[leaves the room, slamming the door]
[pokes his head back in]
Homer: "Oh, by the way, I was being sarcastic."
[closes the door]
Marge: "Well, DUH!"
-- The Simpsons, episode 8F08: "Flaming Moe's"

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds0 to me that you are somehow against posthumous copyright. There is a good reason for there to be some posthumous copyright -- it enables authors to enjoy some of the future value their work will generate within their lifetime.


I don't think the copyright should extend past an authors death. Don't flame me yet, let me explain. I think a copyright should be a flat period of time i.e. 14 years originally with a one time extension for another 14 years totaling 28 years is good. This makes everyone have the same protection and the same copyright limits and if creators don't think it's worth it to extend their copyright, the public gets it in half of the time.
With the way it works now, I could create something today and die tomorrow and the copyright would be 70 years. Whereas someone else creates something today and lives for another 50 years and then gets another 70 years afterward, totaling 120 years for the copyright. This seems to be very unbalanced and makes it more difficult to determine when a copyright actually ends. This is just nuts.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a good idea! The copyright term should be fixed, like patents. And the the poster before you got it right - best to have even shorter time after a sale of rights. This creates the right incentives I would say.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[Hal-9001]

There is a good reason for there to be some posthumous copyright -- it enables authors to enjoy some of the future value their work will generate within their lifetime.

Seeing as you have to be dead to qualify for posthumous copyright, posthumous royalties by definition are not generated within the creator's lifetime, and it's kinda hard for the creator to enjoy them... :-p

Seriously, though, some posthumous copyright to benefit one's heirs and estate is reasonable, but 50-70 years is a little excessive. I agree that 10-20 years would be about the right duration, after which society would be better served by releasing those works into the public domain. Then maybe publishers would realize that selling content in a convenient format is a service, not property.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[njdj]

Seeing as you have to be dead to qualify for posthumous copyright, posthumous royalties by definition are not generated within the creator's lifetime, and it's kinda hard for the creator to enjoy them... :-p

An author can enjoy the value of the posthumous copyright by selling the copyright during his/her lifetime. In fact, many authors do this.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[Skjellifetti]

However, once the copyright has been effectively relinquished by the author, either by actual sale of the copyright or by granting of exclusive licenses to a corporation, there is little rational reason for a copyright term more than ten years, at least if you think the purpose of copyright is to reward authors. Events more than ten years out simply don't factor into any corporate decisions, and therefore do not contribute to the price authors receive from their works.

Someone else who does not really understand the concept of present value. The company will pay P/((1+r)^t) right now for a payment (P) that will be received in year t given interest rate r. That means that $100 that you expect to receive 11 years from now is worth ~$58 today given an interest rate of 5%. You stop the copyright at 10 years after the work is purchased from the author and that $58 is now worth $0 to the purchaser and hence no portion of it will be paid to the author at the time the copyright is bought. You have just deprived the author of a nice chunk of change.

You better believe that authors (or at least their agents) are aware of that as are the publishing houses that buy the copyrights. And if they were not, and they could not think ahead 10 years, why did they want the extension in the first place?

One group that I have heard very little from in this debate over extensions are the authors themselves. I wonder where people like Norman Mailer or Tom Clancy stand on this issue? Probably they are for the extension since it should mean extra dollars in their pockets when a new book contract is written.

Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised.

[deblau]

There is a good reason for there to be some posthumous copyright -- it enables authors to enjoy some of the future value their work will generate within their lifetime.

This argument is utterly untenable. Copyright is a legal protection mechanism used to prevent unauthorized copying as an incentive to promote the arts, e.g. to get authors to write more books. It was never intended as a crutch for authors to lean on as an excuse not to write more books. Furthermore, "future value", as you define it, can only be obtained in the future, not "during the author's lifetime". That clause doesn't make any logical sense.

I rejected the extension first

[ajuda]

Does this mean that I can sue Taiwan for patent/copyright infringement?

Re:I rejected the extension first

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but what you _can_ do is:
- include them in the "axis of evil".
- have their legal head of state assassinated.
- set up guerilla movements that will come back to haunt you in 10-20 years time.
- bomb them back into the stone age.

It must be wonderful, being american and having all these options available...

Re:I rejected the extension first

[DEBEDb]

- Profit?

They Can

[Martigan80]

Well it is well with in their rights to do so. What is America going to do raise the tariffs? Better yet what is Disney going to do? Not a damn thing. They can try to not sell movies anymore but then again where do you think a good portion of the bootlegs come from? Beside living overseas for a while I have noticed that American media "takes" allot of idea from foreign TV and adds them into theirs and visa-versa.

Re:They Can

[Dr. Spork]

What is America going to do raise the tariffs?

America could say "Listen... Our way or the Mainland way!" These are the advantages of being a super-empire.

Re:They Can

[Charm]

And Taiwan would reply "Our way or the no more hi tech way"
The adavantages of being a provider to a super power.

Re:They Can

[Anonymous Coward]

And the U.S. will reply, "There are other worthless countries the infrastructure can be built in."

We'll see how wonderful Taiwan's tech industry feels when the U.S.'s ships aren't keeping the mainland from annexing them.

Re:They Can

[ahfoo]

We'll see how long US copyright law and entire information economy lasts when UMC and TSMC go full tilt boogie on 12inch fabs at 90nm outside Shanghai and start producing state of the art System on a Chip devices using Alpha clone cores running Linux for a few bucks a pop.
Chips have always been a great medium for negotiations. If you aint got no chips, you're out of the game. Suckas.

Re:They Can

[G-funk]

Taiwan has rejected the US's demand to extend copyrights from 50 years to 70 years.

In unrelated news, the RIAA has produced "evidence" (resembling a large brown bag with '$' emblazoned on the side) that Osama Bin Laden has fled Iraq and is currently residing in Taiwan.

Dubya has been quoted as saying "well jeest ta be sher we shoord nookum both"

Re:They Can

[Anonymous Coward]

Demonstrating quite neatly why so much of the world regards America as a festering pit of self-absorbed fascists.

Re:They Can

[operagost]

That would be satirical if Bush ever actually took a bribe. Frankly, if you had any talent for humor you'd be attacking the fact that he has tons of money already and doesn't need bribes.

Re:They Can

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry to break this too you, but Alpha is a dead platform..maybe you would prefer the new Itanium.

Re:They Can

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as someone makes or supports it, the platform lives. Alpha cores for pennies each would kick the shit out of the Itanium, in performance as well as price... :-p

Re:They Can

[Peter Eckersley]

What is America going to do raise the tariffs?

Well, it's worked for them in the past.

Although I believe that after the United States got its choice of minimum copyright and patent standards written in to the GATT, they are theoretically no longer supposed to use these unilateral sanctions to coerce other countries into changing their laws.

ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[Andy Tai]

In 1995 or 1996 due to US pressure copyright protection was extended from 10 to 50 years.

Now the US wants 70 years.

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[Bartab]

Because Europe wanted, and got, 70 from the US. Not having actual parity makes it a bum deal.

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[mumblestheclown]

Who the hell modded up the parent, an utter piece of tripe?

The "initial" copyright protection in the USA was in _1709_ with the statute of Anne.

By 19099 (1911) in the US (UK) it was effectively 56 years, with renewals (life of the author + 50 years.)

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[Breakfast Pants]

Who modded YOUR tripe up to 1? The person was refering to TAIWAN not america. He said their length was changed at that date, not the us's. fucker

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo

Of course, the corollary is also true: "Any sufficiently rigged demo is indistinguishable from magic."

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[ttyRazor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think someone over here convinced Europe to do that so they could then tell Congress "everybody else is doing 70 years! It needs to be uniform!" and make it that much easier. Seeing that we're the copyright center of the media universe, it makes sense that such a nutty idea would originate here.

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[Ed Avis]

'Europe wanted 70 years'? Which countries? A British minister (in an answer to a question in parliament) said that treaty obligations prevented restoring the older copyright term of 50 years, as if that was the reason why.

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is a faggot wanker. IGNORE.

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[roalt]

I believe France already has a 70-year copyright law, while a lot of other countries (like Holland) have 50-years copyright law. So like most laws in Europe, the most stringent law survives.

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[Anonymous Coward]

On 1 Jan 1996 the copyright term throughout the EU was extended to life + 70 years by directive. This directive was published in 1993, back when it was the European Economic Community (EC or EEC).

The principal argument in the US Congress for passing the Sonny Bono copyright extension (in 1998) was to achieve parity with this.

If you read article 7 of the EU directive, you will see that this question of parity was, and is, a real concern. In Europe, copyrights would last 20 years longer on European works in comparison to US works, unless the US extended copyright terms as well.

Personally, I feel that this is not reason enough to justify a copyright extension in the US. But I am still seriously pissed off at the EU bureaucrats for being one of the instigators of this.

Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU's goal is making Europe a boring homogenous society, like say: North America.

Fighting the Man

[thesupermikey]

As an uninformed 'close' to 1st poster im glad to say that someone is fighting the man.

Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone

[raju1kabir]

Perhaps they'll serve as inspiration to other countries.

There are a whole lot places that lose out on this - places that don't have giant entertainment industries with 100-year back catalogs to recycle endlessly.

Can anyone explain further how the harmonization treaties work, and whether everyone is for some reason actually bound to follow the US' lead?

Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone

[mr_tenor]

I hope that more people start realising that all this IP/copyright/DRM crap is just big US companies trying to preserve their profits.

Did you read in the story that "Billions of dollars of entertainment-industry profits are at stake.". I mean - geez! Do they expect to have laws mandating their profitability forever or something??

Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone

[mbogosian]

Perhaps they'll serve as inspiration to other countries.

Yeah, like maybe the U.S.

Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone

[Anne Thwacks]

I think you will find the argument foir this is "we have got all the nukes, so we must be right".

Make sit real clear why the don't want Saddam to get nukes, doesnt it!

Do as I say, don't do as I do

Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone

[nyseal]

From what I understand, the 'harmonization' of US legislature is in line with the EU directives of copyright law; although I don't believe that Taiwan would agree with that either.

Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone

[rweir]

Why does 'harmonisation' always mean to agree to the lowest possible standards?

The WTO is pushing everyone towards bare minimum environmental standards and worker rights; the US is pushing everyone to insane copyright lengths and high levels of corporate control of consumer goods (i.e. DMCA).

I went to a speech by David Suzuki, and he asked these same questions: Why can't we set our standards ever higher for _everyone_?

Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone

[Alphtoo]

"Perhaps they'll serve as an inspiration to other countries."- Yes, perhaps they will. I'm a citizen of the USA and I love my country. One of the things I love is that when our government screws up (as all governments sometimes will), we citizens can stand up and say, "Hey! Uncle Sam, you SCREWED UP!". We can also identify the political supporters of the asinine legislation and vote their sorry asses out of office. The US takes a lot of unwarranted flak regarding all sorts of issues, but this is not such an issue. The law is just plain stupid; it should never have been passed HERE. The very idea that we should persuade/cajole/bribe/threaten other countries into adopting this same bit of insanity into their own laws is, to me, outrageous.

Eggroll?

[methangel]

Of course they rejected it. 70 years is essentially an entire lifetime. 50 years gives the other people a chance.

Re:Eggroll?

[jonr]

It is lifetime PLUS 70 years... pretty silly, huh?

Re:Eggroll?

[mbogosian]

Of course they rejected it. 70 years is essentially an entire lifetime. 50 years gives the other people a chance.

Actually this is more true than you realize:

[P]eople on the island [of Taiwan] enjoy a longer average lifespan than other Asian peoples.... 1

70 years is anywhere from 2 to 10 years shy of the average Taiwan lifespan. This is significant because the US and Taiwan have pretty similar average lifespans. This rejection is about freedom of knowledge, not picking a magic number for copyrights to outlive most of their holders.

Re:Eggroll?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA.

"Taiwan told a delegation led by Joseph Papovich, assistant U.S. trade representative, that it would not extend copyright protection to 70 years from 50 years, a Taiwan Ministry of Economic Affairs official said."

You are thinking of the US. The relevant part of the article is about Taiwan.

Corporate America...

[Anonymous Coward]

...your friendly global government.

Re:Corporate America...

[r0t]

Corporate governance sucks

Piracy == ++Popularity

[billstr78]

Washington, Taiwan's main trading partner and arms supplier, has said the island's failure to protect intellectual property rights is causing hundreds of million dollars damage annually to U.S. recorded music, software and motion picture industries.

But pirating music and software is what makes Bill Gates and Brittany Spears "Super-Stars Number One !!!! {:>" in those countries minds.

Damage... Yes...

[Flamerule]

Washington, Taiwan's main trading partner and arms supplier, has said the island's failure to protect intellectual property rights is causing hundreds of million dollars damage annually to U.S. recorded music, software and motion picture industries.

Oh, that's great! So the slump in music industry revenue is due to Taiwan's copyright protection lasting 50 years, instead of 70 like the US... I suppose the RIAA can stop lobbying Congress to lock down all our computers now, and focus instead on squeezing those last few hundred million dollars out of Taiwan.

What's that you say? The movie industry is enjoying record profits? How is this possible, when in addition to Taiwan's criminal 50-year copyright protection, Jack Valenti assures me that 50 TB of pirated movies in DivX flows through the Internet each day?

Right....

Re:Damage... Yes...

[Dexx]

"So the slump in music industry revenue is due to Taiwan's copyright protection lasting 50 years, instead of 70 like the US..."
So now Taiwan is a threat to capitalism, the US's way of life and government. Therefore, it's an enemy of the US. I wonder if the US will respond with armed forces?

Y'know, a couple years ago that would have sounded a lot less plausable..

Re:Damage... Yes...

[mkldev]

What's that you say? The movie industry is enjoying record profits? How is this possible, when in addition to Taiwan's criminal 50-year copyright protection, Jack Valenti assures me that 50 TB of pirated movies in DivX flows through the Internet each day

Easy. They keep raising the price of tickets....

Re:Damage... Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damm studios can't even keep the film 50 years let alone 70
Source to some MS - Lost.
Dr Who episodes uncensored - lost
Marx Bros or Shintaro - near unobtainable.
Can't even buy the Bardy Bunch or Gomer Pile on CD.
Loss of sales? Just try buying a 50 yo 'classic' - 20 years old is about the most, and 30 years for Jackie Chan - even in pirate central. Once active distribution stops, copyright should end. Exactly how do out of print books raise the authors income?

Re:Damage... Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it. Most of the power of copyright goes for censoring. Plain and simple. Long story...

Odd Move

[RAzaRazor]

This seems like an odd thing to do. The US has been one of Taiwan's biggest supporter in their fight against the PRC.
Personally, if I were in their situation, I wouldn't want to piss off anyone in the US. Especially not people in large industries.

The legitimacy of the copyright extension still remains a question. But it's in their best interest to play along with whatever the US wants. They might tick some politician off (Senator Disney??), and then our carriers might not be in the waters between China and Taiwan the next time China decides to run "Routine Training Missions".

Re:Odd Move

[teamhasnoi]

I think that the US needs Taiwan as much as they need us.

I mean where would carnivals and fairs get their stuffed bannanas and funny bendy pens?

Re:Odd Move

[jon787]

Taiwan's decision is right for all the wrong reasons. They are just going to use that as a bargining chip for more arms or something, I guarantee it.

Re:Odd Move

[NiceGeek]

Not to mention all those trivial memory chips eh?

Re:Odd Move

[Hal-9001]

In truth, I don't think Taiwan needs to worry too much about either China or the U.S. China has to be on its best behavior until the Olympics in Beijing, and you can bet that beating up on a smaller democratic and practically sovereign state would be frowned upon by the international community and probably get the Olympics yanked. And the U.S. is extremely dependent on Taiwan's high-tech manufacturing industries. This fact was made obvious a few years back, when a major earthquake damaged Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. RAM prices skyrocketed for about a year, until Taiwan got their semiconductor production back up to speed. So if for no reason other than cheap motherboards and RAM, pray for the safety of Taiwan.

Re:Odd Move

[Hal-9001]

And motherboards...and chipsets...and I think a lot of systems, especially laptops, are OEMed in Taiwan. It's kinda hard for Intel or AMD to sell processors if there are no boards to put them in, and also for Dell and Gateway to sell systems if no one actually builds them...

Re:Odd Move

[SN74S181]

The Intellectual Property (yeah, I know, dirty word that) in the Taiwanese 'high tech' industries is NOT particularly native to that island. Taiwan is NOT the Asian equivalent of, say, Germany. If it weren't advantageous for multinationals to produce certain types of goods in Taiwan the plants would be rolled out in some other country.

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, if I were in their situation, I wouldn't want to piss off anyone in the US

Then you must wear those "I am with Stupid s while you are there, because they won't swallow this.

Face it young man, the USA era has ended. I don't fucking care what americans have to say now. You go after terrorism thinking it's the world largest threat and I will feed poor children who have suffered more in one day than you have in your life time.

Mess with the USA and you're screwed? Riiiiight, you should have told this to Osama Bin Laden.

Re:Odd Move

[rainwalker]

This is true...of course, it's important to recognize that you can't simply pick up a multimillion (or billion) dollar plant and move it somewhere else once you have built it. Many companies (US and otherwise) have significant capital invested in Taiwan. I imagine that they'd be annoyed if their assets were seized by the PRC :)

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand that these gooks have no loyalty to the White man. They will grin ear-to-ear and genuflect as long as they are getting wealth and technology. When the gains diminish they will try to "extort" more from the West with stunts like this because they know the jew RIAA will lobby the government to give taiwan a card blanche from the American tax payers' wallet to extend copyright law. This is an example of asian international bribery. I can guarantee they will change the copyright laws. When they do this is a matter of when the treacherous US government gives them a trillion dollars worth of missile technology, which will be passed to their brother china within seconds.

Re:Odd Move

[lingqi]

besides; US has already backed out / backstabbed taiwan on the PRC thing.

a few moons back the taiwanese president got carried away when vid-conferencing with some activists in the states and was (caught on tape) saything stuff like "yeah you know taiwan is really its own country from the start"...

china got pissed and issued statements about "taiwan is disrupting the stability of the straits". taiwan't stock market dropped like 20% the following monday, and the taiwan president's office apologized profusely - along the lines of "yeah he didn't know what he was saying at the time / he does not represent our ideals / he was on acid" etc... all the mean while, the US basically said: "hey listen, if you piss off china and they come after you, you (as in taiwan) are on your own, and don't expect jack shit from us."

which is, really, kinda sad. granted US has a good reason for this: china is a BIG market and there are tons of US money poured there(*1). point being: (1) I think after the US realized that the communist(*2) government are not impeding the free-trade capitalism taking root, they stopped being so rough on it; and to sacrifice a 386B "country" to a 4.5T market (with unbelieveable potential to grow)? yeah, of course. (2) it's kinda sad that the US would go and abandon one of its storgest (as in, most faithful) allies / followers / groupies for $$, as I personally believe this is what it boiled down to; but hey... this is capitalism -- and a wise man (don't flame me now ;^) -- the guy's name is Lenin) said that (a version of it, anyway) "a capitalist would sell the roap to hang another capitalist if it meant making money..." ha! this should go down in the history books as the perfect example.

note(*1): China is the second most economically powerful country in the world, you know -- no joke -- not japan, not taiwan, not germany; (US GDP: 9.963T; China GDP: 4.5T; Japan (3rd) GDP: 3.15T; taiwan is at a measly 386B -- all figures are 2000 estimates from maps.com atlas

note (*2) communist / communism is a misnomer since they (PRC) don't even call *themselves* communists! the first thing they teach in school's policital science classes is that perfect communism is unachieveable (i went through the class) so the (PRC) settles on socialism instead...

Re:Odd Move

[revengance]

China does not want to invade Taiwan militarily. That's would be a stupid thing to do. All it needs is to "swallow" up taiwan economically.

Re:Odd Move

[gnovos]

The legitimacy of the copyright extension still remains a question. But it's in their best interest to play along with whatever the US wants.

Yeah, I agree. It almost sounds like they have some principles or something, what's with that?

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

Which makes it come down to who has more to lose. Is it more important we secure 20 more years for copyright, or that we need to move our factories to some other asian slave state?

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all motherboards and the vast majority of notebooks including HP/Compaq, Apple, Dell and Toshiba all come from Taiwan.

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the jew connection is interesting. I think the stereotypes in your post are overdone though. Using that kind of edgy cut and paste stuff makes you sound like a closet queer full of sublimed sexual energy. But there are genuine historical, social connections between jews and asians. I'd say it's safe to assume that you can't expect to turn to asia to fix your jew problem as an American. But, that's as obvious as the fact that the US does have a jew problem that needs to be addressed. Osama is fighting the just cause and America really needs to present this to her jews and insist that support for Israel be curtailed.

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

In truth, I don't think Taiwan needs to worry too much about either China or the U.S. China has to be on its best behavior until the Olympics in Beijing, and you can bet that beating up on a smaller democratic and practically sovereign state would be frowned upon by the international community and probably get the Olympics yanked.

So would you rather host the olympics or own Taiwan? I can't see this should even be a slightly dificult choice. I'ts not like they have some great human rights record to defend. The olympics might be worth a bit in attracting wealth into the country, but compared to taking Taiwan?

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is not abandoning Taiwan.

It is more a question of: if Taiwan insists on putting itself into a bad situation, it cannot count on the US to fix everything. That has been true for decades.

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

"a capitalist would sell the roap to hang another capitalist if it meant making money..." ha! this should go down in the history books as the perfect example

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope we hang them with."

-- Lenin

I just think it's such a great quote that it deserved to be put right. :)

Re:Odd Move

[nels_tomlinson]

besides; US has already backed out / backstabbed taiwan on the PRC thing.

Can anyone name an ally that the US hasn't betrayed, in the period since WWII? I don't think NATO counts in this one, since we needed them about as badly as they needed us. But every ``little guy'' that depended on us, every little revolutionary front that was trying to unseat a totalitarian government, every small country that tried to align itself with the US, seems to have been dropped in the crapper at the first opportunity to appease the enemy. Some examples (other than Taiwan) would be the Hungarian revolutionaries in the 50's and South Vietnam, which we made dependent, damaged, then abandoned.

If there are exceptions, they would be the fascist dictatorships which we have encouraged until they were overthrown by their own people. This usually gave a great boost to communism (in South America and Southeast Asia) or to radical Islam (in what once was Persia). I think that the US has done more to advance the cause of communism than the Soviet Union and China together.

... they (PRC) don't even call *themselves* communists!

How's that old saying go? Something like: ``A communist is a socialist with a gun.'', I think. Communism is a Bad Word, socialism is a Good Word, but names don't change facts.

It seems to me that any small ally of the US has been either been delivered up to its enemies, or driven to them. I think it says a lot about Taiwan's devotion to freedom, or its caution, or something good, that they have been able to outlive our betrayal. It started when Nixon recognized China, so maybe it was the gradual nature of the betrayal that gave them a chance to hang on.

Re:Odd Move

[Reziac]

Actually, according to my RAM dealer, ONE factory got wonked, and everyone else took advantage of the PERCEPTION that "omighod there's no production because of quake/fire damage" to raise prices. Hence the temporary spike (which lasted only about 3 months).

Re:Odd Move

[MSZ]

They are just going to use that as a bargining chip for more arms or something, I guarantee it.

Well, I don't think their govt cares much for copyright. They'll get military support and just make few more anti-"pirate" raids... announced week in advance in the local newspaper.

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

Hugarian revolution was a no-go from the very start.
US would not start a war with Soviets over some small country,even if it is was in Europe.

Vietnam was a big fuck up.
But then again, this was the first big "fight" for the liberal wing of the democratic party.
They won that fight - US and Vietnamese people lost big time.

Middle east was a one big fuckup after another.

Re:Odd Move

[vespazzari]

I think one point you forgot to mention was that china also has a very large military, I am not sure if that is what you ment as far as the US not helping out taiwan, if it were to come to war it would not be like pitting two 800 pound gorillas together not like and 800 pound gorrilla and a spider monkey.

Re:Odd Move

[operagost]

Some examples (other than Taiwan) would be the Hungarian revolutionaries in the 50's and South Vietnam, which we made dependent, damaged, then abandoned.

It was the French who created that mess and left those people to kill each other. And we pulled out before the job was done because of left-wing activists, and the job was never done because of the left-wing UN.

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but if Taiwan one-ways a couple of nukes to Shanghai and Beijing, no one wins...

Re:Odd Move

[Hal-9001]

The correct question is would you rather host the Olympics or get boycotted into oblivion. Invasion is a big no-no in international relations, and would probably would result in a lot of countries would probably suspend trade relations with China, negating any benefit of owning Taiwan's manufacturing capability.

Re:Odd Move

[That_Dan_Guy]

Actually most companies have given up on China as a market. They only see it as cheap labor. (www.feer.com :http://www.feer.com/articles/2002/0210_17/p030chi na.html)

And actually the drop in the Taiwan market couldn't have been more than 7%, as the market closes down when it jumps either way more than 7%.

Your point that Taiwan has lost its importance (or at least the appearance thereof) is something I agree with. But I don't think you agree with me when I say that Taiwan is still considered by the American Government as a strategically important Ally in the region.

Re:Odd Move

[wrunt]

"a capitalist would sell the roap to hang another capitalist if it meant making money..."

yeah? Well I would sell you a dictionary if I thought it would prevent spelling like that :)

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, yeah. Uh huh.

So, you didn't 'pull out' because you were getting royally screwed.

And I suppose it was those FRENCH people who lied about US ships being attacked in the first place too, right?

Re:Odd Move

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon lads, learn some history. Taiwan was screwed way before now - Nixon himself did the job, when he decided to trade the US's previously 100% support for Taiwan, in exchange for closer relations with China, in order to box in the-then Soviet Union.

In my lifetime

[__aafkqj3628]

I would agree with extending it from 50 to 70, because if I do something really profound (like Disney's Mickey mouse) and then 50 years down the line it's suddenly public property, I don't want to be alive when that happens!

At least make it the expected age for people so they can take peace that they'll take it to their grave with them.

Re:In my lifetime

[fenix down]

It's 50/70 years after you're dead.

Your children will be able to take your work to their graves with them.

Re:In my lifetime

[__aafkqj3628]

I realise that, but just keep some people pissed off at you for a bit longer is still funny . ;)

Re:In my lifetime

[bnenning]

if I do something really profound (like Disney's Mickey mouse) and then 50 years down the line it's suddenly public property, I don't want to be alive when that happens!

That doesn't make a great deal of sense. What's so terrible about a work that you've produced entering the public domain?

Re:In my lifetime

[Bald Wookie]

That doesn't make a great deal of sense. What's so terrible about a work that you've produced entering the public domain?

Two words: "Peeing Calvin"

Re:In my lifetime

[ligasing]

>they'll take it to their grave with them Can I write you a check or give you my credit to take with you when you go?

Re:WTF!!

[Cs.Ender]

Then why are you posting here???????

The point is that an issue that is undergoing some debate domesticly is being debated abroad as well. The copy protection in games/music cds/dvds/etc. isn't there as much for script kiddies who want to burn copies for their freinds as it is for the people in "shitty little third world aisian countrys" who are more likely to buy a bootleg copy than a real one.

It's people who think that America is the only place that matters who are make the rest of the world hate us. If you are too stupid to realize that everything you do is affected by the rest of the world, you are too stupid to post on slashdot.

Further reading

[harper18]

Regarding the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, aka the "Steamboat Willie Preservation Act" and Lawrence Lessig, the lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, there's a great article in this month's Wired magazine that gives a little bit of depth and insight on what the timely extension of copyright law means to the artistic world.

The big problem, as Lessig sees it, is that continual extensions of copyright prevent anything new from entering the public domain. This is most ironic, notes Lessig, since Disney dredged the public domain for its most lucrative properties... Because of the Bono Act, Lessig asserts, "no one can do to Disney as Disney did to the Brothers Grimm."

Re:Further reading

[SN74S181]

"no one can do to Disney as Disney did to the Brothers Grimm."

Actually, the Brothers Grimm didn't create all those stories, either. They went around and collected from the oral tradition. So it's not theirs either.

Re:Further reading

[bstadil]

"no one can do to Disney as Disney did to the Brothers Grimm."

This is a real bad example even though I agree with Lessig. The Grimm Bothers didn't invent or created the stories as such. They collected and wrote up old German folk tales and made them available so they could be read and cherished.

A much better example is H.C. Andersen. He created the story about the Little Mermaid, The Little Tin soldier, etc.

No sure what Disney stole other than the Mermaid.

By the way. Steamboat Willie aka Mickey was lifted from a Buster Keaton film.

Re:Further reading

[x136]

This is a real bad example even though I agree with Lessig. The Grimm Bothers didn't invent or created the stories as such. They collected and wrote up old German folk tales and made them available so they could be read and cherished.

That's exactly the point. They took something in the public domain and remade it, and when that entered the public domain, Disney remade it. Except that now, Disney's remade versions aren't passing into the public domain to allow the next generation of interpretation.

Re:Further reading

[bstadil]

I understand your point, and it's well taken.

Maybe it is not such a bad example after all.

Re:Further reading

[Redline]

No sure what Disney stole other than the Mermaid.

Jungle Book from Rudyard Kipling.
Alice in Wonderland from Lewis Carroll.
Peter Pan from J.M. Barrie

That is just the animated features. Most of the "classic" Disney films are based on works with expired copyrights. (Black Beauty, 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, Heidi, etc.) Have a look at this list of books that have lost copyright and passed into the public domain. Then count how may are Disney flicks.

Disney had a rich culture of stories to draw from and reinterpret. They are trying to prevent the next generation of storytellers and media producers from doing to them what they did to earlier content creators.

Re:Further reading

[mpe]

They took something in the public domain and remade it, and when that entered the public domain, Disney remade it.

This is what people have done since prehistory.

Except that now, Disney's remade versions aren't passing into the public domain to allow the next generation of interpretation.

Copyright is fairly new idea. It was invented when the printing press originally as a way for the state to control who could use that then new invention. This was later revised into copyright V2 which gave rights to the author, rather than the publisher. This is the version the writers of the US constitution used as a model.
Since then copyright has grown both in length and scope, such that it is completly out of step with "the next generation of interpretation". Not a problem for the big corporate publishers though, since they can easily cross licence with each other, but a big issue for those outside that cartel.

Re:Further reading

[Xenographic]

My count says it's 13 non-Disnified to 25 Disnified works. OTOH, I'm almost certainly mistaken about some, since I can't quite remember which ones were actually adapted by Disney, so take this with a grain of salt...

OTOH, I *know* that there have been many adaptations of most of those works, including ones by people other than Disney, so...

Re:Further reading

[frawaradaR]

Disney had a rich culture of stories to draw from and reinterpret. They are trying to prevent the next generation of storytellers and media producers from doing to them what they did to earlier content creators.

What stops you from making your own interpretation of any Grimm, Andersen, Carrol or even Disney story? Want to interpret the interpretation of the interpretation of Snowwhite? Please go ahead, but please draw your own fucking 24 pictures per second of animation. The idea of Snowwhite, and any interpretation thereof, is forever free as long as you put your own labor into the presentation, and as long as it isn't a genuine ripoff.

Arne Anka (Arne Duck) [http://www.lysator.liu.se/~mosh/arne_eng.html] is an interpretation of Donald Duck as a Slashdot geek or something, and it is a perfectly legal interpretation, despite the resemblance with the real duck. It so happened [http://lcg-www.uia.ac.be/~erikt/comics/arneAnka.h tml] that when Disney complained, Arne was supplied with another bill, but later attached a loose bill to regain his initial Donald-like features... Disney gave up.

Re:Further reading

[Martigan80]

For gods sake Pinocchio!

Re:Further reading

[Gumshoe]

No sure what Disney stole other than the Mermaid.

The complete list of Disney films that were adaptations of works in the public domain.

20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
Alice In Wonderland
Beauty and the Beast
Cindarella
Hunchback of NotreDame
Jonny Appleseed
Jungle Book
Kidnapped
The Little Mermaid
Mulan
Paul Bunyon
Pinocchio
Sleeping Beauty
Sleepy Hollow

By the way. Steamboat Willie aka Mickey was lifted from a Buster Keaton film.

The Buster Keaton movie, Steamboat Bill, was not in the public domain. However Steamboat Willie was a parody of the film, which constitutes fair use of the copyrighted work.

Re:Further reading

[puppet10]

You answered your own question. Look at the lengths involved after Disney sent the letter to stop using the Donald Duck likeness (although thats not what Christensen was doing in his mind). Copyright does not only prevent you from creating exact duplicates, it also prevents you from making derivative works. That means anything based on the story using the characters, or bearing a superficial resemblance can be determined to be infringing. So if as you say it was an interpretation of Donald Duck as something else it is technically an infringing work, because it is derivative. Disney might not have dropped its legal suit so quickly if the comic was in english.

Or for another example look at the case of the Gone with the Wind Estate (note the author is dead) vs. the author of The Wind Done Gone, a parody of the Gone with the Wind book. Even though its very different and a parody as well it was found to infringe the copyright of Gone with the Wind, and although the ban on publishing was lifted a monetary settlement had to be made to the copyright holder of Gone with the Wind.

Re:Further reading

[rseuhs]

Now let me get that right:

When the Grimm brothers take something from the public domain and remake it, "it's not theirs".

But when Disney does it, it is not only theirs it also should be protected for decades and decades?

Re:Further reading

[rseuhs]

What stops you from making your own interpretation of any Grimm, Andersen, Carrol or even Disney story?

In the case of Disney, copyright does.

Just try to publish a comic with a talking duck or mouse even remotely resembling Disney characters and count the days until Disney's lawers knock on your door.

Exactly that's the reason Disney wants perpetual protection of their early Micky Mouse stuff. Do you really think they are afraid of people warezing Steamboat-willie?

Re:Further reading

[rseuhs]

AFAIK, the copyright of Steamboat Bill has expired which was only 14 years at that time and Disney had to wait a bit until it was expired before publishing Steamboat Willie.

Re:Further reading

[Gumshoe]

AFAIK, the copyright of Steamboat Bill has expired which was only 14 years at that time

The copyright duration at the time of Steamboat Bill (1928) was 56 years. This period was set in 1909.

and Disney had to wait a bit until it was expired before publishing Steamboat Willie.

Steamboat Bill was published in 1928. Steamboat Willie was published in the same year.

Re:Further reading

[NumberSyx]

Actually he is correct. Micky Mouse and Donald Duck are still completely protected by Copyright. However there is nothing stopping "Wes Cravens Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" from being made except desire. The original story is in the Public Domain, anyone can use it as the basis of another work,as long as none of Disneys interpretations are used.

Re:Further reading

[MenTaLguY]

Because of Disney's cultural clout, people only know the Disney versions of most of these stories. Try telling them the originals and they look at you funny.

Once Disney releases one of their movies, alternate productions drop _way_ off.

I remember when I was small I used to see various interpretations of "Aladdin and the Magic Lamp" all the time on TV. Then the Disney movie came out. Over the next couple years non-Disney interpretations almost completely disappeared from media (though occasionally you can still find them in dinner theatres and the like, though lately many of those are licensed by Disney).

Something similar happened for pretty much all of the PD material Disney interpreted.

Do you remember how "The Little Mermaid" ends? The original one? How many other people you know do?

Re:Further reading

[frawaradaR]

Copyright does indeed entitle you to making dervative works. That is why Windows is not a copyright infringement of Mac OS (because it has substantial differences). That is why Bentley is not a copyright infringement of Rolls-Royce. That is why Macslash is not a copyright infringement of Slashdot. That is why PAL is not a copyright infringement of NTSC. That is why VHS is not a copyright infringement of Betamax. That is why there are different types of cars, sound systems, furniture, bottles, chewing gums, soda pops, and so on. It must be so, unless we want a stale and static society where nothing ever gets invented and improved.

The only criterion for copyright is that the copyright is not a plain rip-off, that it adds something unique to the derivative, that someone is not trying to profit on someone else's labor. In the case with Arne Anka, that duck takes the same shape as Donald Duck but targets an adult audience (and can therefore not infringe on Disney's potential revenues -- that is, it is not a copyright infringement).

If I translate a book, I retain the copyright of the translation, although I didn't contribute to the story. What is copyrighted is the creativity going into wording the translation appropriately. It isn't a pure rip-off, but an adaptation. The publisher/author still retains the copyright on the story, but copyright on the whole is expanded.

Disney would like to own the concept of a duck forever, but it ain't so. Not yet anyway, and certainly not in the rest of the world. The US may have a fling with fascism currently, but hopefully all will be fine eventually when some serious dudes in politics realize the consequences.

As for me, I am happily living in a country where a minister of the government was cleared from charges of giving a friend a CD with a ripped mp3 collection...

Re:Further reading

[frawaradaR]

You can use Disney characters in your creative work without infringing on copyright. Disney's interpretation of Snowwhite is present in Shrek, for instance. But it doesn't make or break the film, so it isn't an infringement.

Any comedian can also use the voice of Donald Duck without infringing on anyone's rights. Parodies and humorous interpretations in general cannot be a copyright infringement, and the only reason such cases surface every now and then is because of big business and its hords of lawyers scaring people off.

Re:Further reading

[Fjord]

A good example of this is Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hallow".

Re:Further reading

[SN74S181]

Nope:

Both the Grimm brothers and Disney are wrong.

Re:Further reading

[ixache]

What about Robin Hood and most of all, the mother of all Disney movies, Snow White? Not to to forget that Atlantis and The Lion King were heavily "inspired" from coyprighted Japanaese animation works.

Xavier

Re:Further reading

[Gumshoe]

Snow White was omitted by accident. With regards as to why Robin Hood wasn't mentioned, it is for the same reason I never mentioned "Sword in the Stone".

Not to to forget that Atlantis and The Lion King were heavily "inspired" from coyprighted Japanaese animation works.

You said it yourself, those films are copyrighted. The list was of films that were adapted from works in the public domain.

Wise decision

[Jinjuro]

Copyright was designed to give the creators of some kind of intellectual property a reasonable amount of time to profit from their creation before opening it to the rest of society for use in derivative works, not to tightly control use of one's works, even long after they may have been dead.

Its bad enough Taiwan's copyright duration was increased so much...10 years does seem a little short, but 50 seems too much, its still better than 70 or 99 though. It's good to see a country not give in to what was most likely pressure from the media.

Re:Wise decision

[mbogosian]

Copyright was designed to give the creators of some kind of intellectual property a reasonable amount of time to profit from their creation before opening it to the rest of society for use in derivative works, not to tightly control use of one's works, even long after they may have been dead.

As long as corporations are allowed to own copyrights (and otherwise enjoy rights of ownership), then copyright (and domain name) extension will be indefinite (or at least as long as the lifetime of the company, any of its subsidiaries, or to whomever its assets are sold in Chapter 7 liquidation).

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying it like it is: once something is owned by a corporation, it will most likely be owned as long as possible.

Re:Wise decision

[mpe]

Copyright was designed to give the creators of some kind of intellectual property a reasonable amount of time to profit from their creation before opening it to the rest of society for use in derivative works, not to tightly control use of one's works, even long after they may have been dead.

Originally copyright was designed to give the state control over who could use the newly invented printing press. The version in the US constitution is the revised version. Note that profiting from the work isn't the intended end that is that the author continue to produce. Too long a copyright will have the opposite effect and they certainly can't produce anything after they are dead. (Ghosts and vampires more often are characters than authors...)

Its bad enough Taiwan's copyright duration was increased so much...10 years does seem a little short, but 50 seems too much, its still better than 70 or 99 though.

10 years is probably actually plenty. There can't be many works which having failed to make back their costs in 10 years would magically do so if they had an extra 40-80 years to do so. Indeed in many lines of publishing (movie and music industries) if something isn't making a profit in something around 10 months (or even 10 weeks) it's considered a "flop".

Re:Wise decision

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah blah blah blah

shut the fuck up

Re:Wise decision

[JamesKPolk]

Don't forget.. that's 10 years *beyond the life of the author*, not just 10 years from creation.

10 years is plenty.

Re:Wise decision

[mindstrm]

10 years is short? I don't know.
10 years sounds good to me.

If my mother reads me a new childrens book when I'm 3 years old, and it inspires me... by the time I hit highschool, 10 years later, it should be public domain, and new books should exist. This would ENCOURAGE more creative works from writers.

If I read something around the time I'm graduating from highschool, and heading to university, should I have to wait until I'm 60 years old until that work passes into the public domain? that's basically my entire adult life.

10 years is plenty. The only people who benefit after 10 yeras are publishers.... not the authors.

You heartless bastards! I could lose millions!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The entertainment industry is losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year because of Taiwan and their regressive 50 year limit on copyright. Why, I myself could stand to lose $100,000,000 a year* on copyrights that I own in another 35 years! This is completely unacceptable. I hear that the Congress gave Bush the green light to start wars in defiance of international law, so lets level those bastards in Taiwan while we're at it!

* Based on projections that I would be able to sell 100,000,000 copies of my Master's thesis at $1 per copy.

Lifetime of the artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what you'd be looking for is a lifetime of the artist copyright, If you die at 50, then that 50 years was the copyright, if you live to 100, then you've held your copyright for a hell of a long time.

I don't really know what the answer is, but I do know that IF I ever created something worth copyrighting, I would want it to last my lifetime.

It all depends on what side of the fence you're on.

A.C.

Re:Lifetime of the artist?

[__aafkqj3628]

And when you die it automatically gets transfered to next of kin (for their lifetime)?

Re:Lifetime of the artist?

[martyn s]

Sure, I'd like a lot of things. Like a million dollars. It doesn't mean it there is any sense in awarding it to you. There isn't a single book, movie or song that you would've made, but won't, since copyright isn't your entire lifetime. That's the only issue.

Re:Lifetime of the artist?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, If I really made it BIG, I'm sure during my lifetime my kid(s) would have swindled enough cash out of the old man to keep them comfortable. If not, they can fend for themselves, Just like I have to.

No passing it on to other family members. When you go, the Copyright Goes. Easy as 1, 2, FREE.

A.C.

Knowledge? Mickey Mouse?

[euxneks]

The U.S. Supreme Court considered on Wednesday whether Robert Frost poems and Mickey Mouse movies made more than 75 years ago should become public property or remain in the hands of their owners for another 20 years.
...
``Why should we be blamed for pursuing knowledge?'' a student protester said on television.
Mickey Mouse is knowledge? Let me guess, he teaches people how to wildly swerve a steamboat and whistle....?

Re:Knowledge? Mickey Mouse?

[Observer]

Mickey Mouse is knowledge?

No, he's intellectual property, which is a subset of knowledge.

I eat meat and shower regularly, Thank-You.

[Cs.Ender]

I would reference you to any number of previous discussions on slashdot (I'll go find a few and add links if anyone wants me to) where there are more people talking about their legitimately purchased games and other software. I would like to think I speak for most of the slashdot comunity when I say that of course you have a right to earn a living off of your code (or other ideas). While Open Source projects contribute more to the advancement of knowlege than proprietary ones, they don't earn anyone money. WE REALIZE THAT! Many of us write software for a living do you think we don't appreciate the ability to live off of that? If you want to talk to people who think everything should be avalible for free, go find a warez channel on irc. To talk to intelligent human beings please treat us as such.

Re:My experiences in Taiwan

[jonr]

Recycling flamebaits, are we?

Disney are hypocrits

[Poilobo]

Disney's fortune has been made utilizing public domain works. Their entire movie list is made up from the works of the Grimm brothers (Grimms Fairy Tales is public domain). Now that they are being required to add pack to the public domain they are pushing to extend the time (which they do everytime the expiration period comes up).

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[DragonMagic]

Don't forget:

The Little Mermaid (Anderson)
The Lion King (Kimba the White Lion)
Atlantis (bears a STRIKING resemblance to Dinotopia)
Alice in Wonderland (Carroll)

Probably many more that I can't name right now. But so far, Disney has made most its money off titles based on or too similar to others' works.

And they want control over their derivative works for as long as possible to ensure no one can profit off them.

Too bad people are crying for them about this who don't know WHY the CTEA truly is bad.

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[Poilobo]

Add Mulan to that list as well. It's based on a Chinese fable.

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[stud9920]

Don't forget the sleeping beauty (La belle au bois dormant) fron Charles Perrault

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, one scene in Dinotopia, from cover, looks identical to triumphal procession in Episode 1 (slightly different evil)

Regarding Atlantis.
http://www.oldcrows.net/Atlantis/

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[NewsWatcher]

While I would tend to agree that Disney ignore the original copyright owners when it suits them (ie if legally they don't have to pay anything), my bet is that Alice in Wonderland is a bad example. I am sure the estate of Lewis Carrol has made quite a bit of money from the film. I think you will find that Disney didn't just use it without permission.

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[krouic]

Add Victor Hugo's "Notre-Dame de Paris" to that long list of public domain works used by Disney.

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[djmurdoch]

I am sure the estate of Lewis Carrol has made quite a bit of money from the film. I think you will find that Disney didn't just use it without permission.

The movie came out in 1951, 53 years after the death of the author, so the book was in the public domain at the time. Why do you think Disney would have paid to use a public domain work?

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[haggar]

Even more obvious ones:

The Beauty and The Beast
The sword in the Stone
Tarzan
The Emperor's New Groove
Hercules (heh, this dates WAY back ;o))
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Pinocchio

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[gl4ss]

not only that but IIRC they started making it on the instant it went to pd.

Re:Disney are hypocrits

[stubear]

But doesn't society in genenral have equal access to the works Disney based their own creations on? Of course they do. Anyone can create an animated story based on a number of fables, fairy tales and tall stories from our past. Creative poeple understand this. We know that we can take the essence of many stories (good v. evil, love conquers all obstacles...) and create a new story wholly our own. We can even take things like The Jungle Book and present our own vision of the story in an animated fashion or live action. NOTHING precludes you, me or anyone else from doing this. The one thing you cannot do is use the "expression of the idea" that someone else has already used (i.e. Disney's animated versions of famous fairy tales). This is the point most miss when discussing copyright. Is having The Matrix in the public doamin going to change this? No, because anyone can write a story about a christ-like character and base the entier thing in cybespace if they want. You have to be careful how close to The Matrix you make your story. A good example of this would be the two movies "A Bug's Life" and "Antz". Both movies are about an improbable hero (an ant) who saves their colony from disaster, yet neither violates copyright law in any way.

OK, Fine

[istartedi]

(overheard in deepest, darkest bowels of the White House and/or the Skull and Bones fraternity house) OK, Fine. We were looking for an excuse to let the ChiComs have it anyway. Now we can maintain our short position in semiconductor fabs and get that foosball table we've been wanting. Just make sure to withdraw military support after the election.

I'm not really that cynical. I actually agree with GWB more than half the time. It's just that making GWB jokes in irresistable. I don't really believe there are any such evil conspiracies in the

NO CARRIER

Just shoot you

[WinPimp2K]

Life plus X years is very bad law. Copyright should be the same period for everyone.

So if you come up with the "next Mickey Mouse", just kill yourself before the copyright expires

Besides, what happens to the whole life plus X years argument when people stop dying? It seems an extreme example, but what if the medical nanotech Pollannas are right?

Certainly life expectancies have increased in the past 200 odd years. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that considered 19 years an upper limit based on the actuarial(sp?) data available at the time. His concern was for limiting the freedom of the living due to the acts of the dead. (like maybe someone with a genetic melanin deficincy wanting to perform Porgy and Bess)

Have you ever bothered to watch all the credits on a movie and then at the very nd see the notice that says "for Bourne Convntion purposes, the copyright owner of this work is ..."? The owner "of record"is a person not a corporation. Ever wonder how old that person is?

If copyright were for a uniform period of time it would be much easier to handle. Currently, everything written by Stephn King will fall into the public domain in 2070 (he did die last year didn't he? :)

But if copyright were for a uniform 20 years or so, we would already have his earlier (and arguably better) works already in the public domain. We also would not have silly legal arguments over the allowable name for an Austin Powers movie (as the original Bond novels would all be in the public domain)

Re:Just shoot you

[mpe]

Life plus X years is very bad law. Copyright should be the same period for everyone.

It can make it hard to work out when a copyright expires, especially if X is a long period of time. Also an effectivly imortal corporation can probably wait X years more easily than a person...

Certainly life expectancies have increased in the past 200 odd years. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that considered 19 years an upper limit based on the actuarial(sp?) data available at the time.

Is like expectancy the right metric in the first place? As opposed to some measurment of "generation" either human or related to the type of creative work.

Some info...

[DigitalHammer]

Outside the Board of Foreign Trade where the negotiation was held, dozens of college students protested against the U.S. demand, shouting ``Knowledge can't be monopolised.''

This excerpt of a previous post of mine explains some of the reasons why Chinese peoples (in China and Taiwan) have resisted or have not accepted the idea of intellectual property. I believe this quote is the most important:

"Confucius's concept of the transmission of culture and Marx's views on the social nature of language and invention arose from very different ideological foundations. Nonetheless, because each school of thought in its own way saw intellectual creation as fundamentally a product of the larger society from which it emerged, neither elaborated a strong rationale for treating it as establishing private ownership interests.[15] Deeply influenced by these two ideologies, China falls behind all developed countries and many developing countries in the field of intellectual property protection. It is also not difficult to understand why most of Chinese did not know what were IPRs in 1980s."

Read about more of those reasons here.

Me Too!

[zapatero]

Inspired by Taiwan's proclamation, I announce to the /. community that I too reject this copyright extention.

Just like Australia

[dmoynihan]

another country that's sticking to Life+50 (or, why you can download 1984 and The Great Gatsby from a legit server).

Way to go, Taiwan!

Copyright reform

[Sandman1971]

I think the way copyright works needs a major reform. Here's a few examples on how I think copyright could be reformed. (all numbers are just fictitious for the point of the argument and may not all work in conjunction).

* Standard copyright is 35 years. Everything falls into this.

* If something is still being produced. IE: Mickey Mouse, Superman comics, etc... by the original company/owner (Disney, DC Comics), copyrights for those works/characters can be extended up to 100 years.>BR> * There should be different copyrights for different mediums: litterature, movies, music would all have different lenghts of time for a copyright. Just a few ideas. I'm sure the lot of you have other ones that may be better than this.

Re:Copyright reform

[silentbozo]

No need to extend copyright for items that can be covered by trademark law. Mickey Mouse and Superman are trademarked characters, and can be protected, without having to lock up earlier works created using their characters. 35 years is a bit short - I'd argue we should go back to having periodic renewals for an additional 15 years, up to a period of 65 years.

Re:Copyright reform

[dfeist]

I would propose 20 years for everything. Today, that's plenty for everything and it would boost productivity - companies could not simply live from their old merits, but they were forced to make new things.
The same should be true for patents!

Re:Copyright reform

[Anonymous Coward]

copyrights for those works/characters can be extended up to 100 years.

I research Australian World War I history, all the government photographs for that period were no longer protected by the Australian Copyright Act of 1968 in 1969. There are only a couple of Australian World War I veterans left, predominantly the only way the story of Australia's world war I experience can be told is through recorded words and images. Adding one hundred years to that would mean these words and images are should be cultural heritage now would not be cultural heritage until 2018. Far too long, the whole generation will be gone by then.

US Copyright currently protects back to 1922, if another 5 years is added to US Copyright protection, World War I will be engulfed and the words and images of America's history of that conflict will be stifled and suffocated. Like Australia most of the American World War I veterans are gone too.

Copyright disrupts and interferes with cultural heritage. Cultural concerns should always trump mere commercial concerns. As a World War I historian, I also had to fight off a bad intepretation of the Australian Copyright Act by the Australian War Memorial. They were wrong and i was right, I had every right ot use the image in the manner I did. However, that monopoly when mis-intepreted has the ability to stifle cultural story telling and history.

mocom--

Re:Copyright reform

[Blue Stone]

Mickey Mouse is arguably nolonger under Trademark Law. Mad Magazine produced a satire of Mickey Mouse under the title Mickey Rodent.

The character is indistingushable from Mickey Mouse. Disney (to my knowlege) didn't sue; it therefore didn't aggressively defend it's trademark, so it's nolonger a trademark (theoretically.)

Good move Taiwan!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even 50 years is much too much. In my opinion
fair lenght is 20-25 years - a generation - no more.

Long-term copyright protection on drugs and other stuff is a cancer spread by US bullying all over the world.

Kubus

Re:My experiences in Taiwan

[Anonymous Coward]

"It doesn't help that their infernal language consists of abrupt rapid fire tones that is a cacophony for any human ear to bear. How do they speak and listen to that shit without going crazy all day long is beyond me."

"The hypocrisy, corruption, and double-standards from the highest levels of government on over are the norm..."

You could such sweeping statements about Americans too.

How many 51yr. old movies and songs...

[dameron]

are being pirated in Taiwan anyway...?

-dameron

Re:How many 51yr. old movies and songs...

[Breakfast Pants]

Insightful? Absolutely no 51 year movies and songs are being pirated.. because they are in the public domain! You can't pirate something that is in the public domain. (I know my statement isn't true cause the laws in Taiwan are life + 50 but I just kept my numbers in line with the parent's)

50 years is plenty.

[Anonymous Coward]

if you can't get renumeration in the 50 years that follows the creation of your work, then screw you.
Besides you didn't create it in a vacum.
After 50 years it's into the Commons.
Gee, good thing Hans Christian Anderson didn't
have a country that was adding 20 years of copyright extension every 5 years, or Disney would be losing billions to the very same policy they are pushing.
Yea, it is different when it bites you on the
ass.
If Disney ,,et al could come up with some
fresh creative work that wasn't derivitive they
wouldn't need to worry about milking a cash
cow from the early part of this century.

Re:50 years is plenty.

[mpe]

if you can't get renumeration in the 50 years that follows the creation of your work, then screw you.

How long is it before record companies consider a song which dosn't sell well a "miss", how long before movie companies judge a film a "flop", TV companies will cancel a TV series, book publishers will have unsold books destroyed? A lot less than 50 years, typically a lot less than 5, this was probably the case back in 1952 as well.

Gee, good thing Hans Christian Anderson didn't have a country that was adding 20 years of copyright extension every 5 years, or Disney would be losing billions to the very same policy they are pushing.

Actual creators don't tend to be demanding increased copyright protection. It tends to be either publishers, so they can squeeze some additional profits from their back catalogue and the descendants of popular creators (the way things are going great grandchildren) who would rather live off their ancestor than use their own talents. Indeed quite often still living, and youthfull, creators don't hold the copyright on their works.

Ring, ring

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello?

Dick, it's thuh bossman.

Yeah, good one George. What do you want know? I'm kind of busy with all this planning - I'm up to my ass in miniature B-2's

Just one questicular point Dick.

What now?

Is it too late to get it changed to read, "Iraq, Taiwan"?

This is a conspiracy...

[DarkHelmet]

To see Spandex in Taiwan 20 years earlier....

xxAA's revenge will be...

[Windcatcher]

secretly lobbying the government to either deny help or be verrrry slow in helping Taiwan when the PRC invades (like they won't eventually).

"You won't bend to our will? Then you can BEND TO THEIRS! Mwahahahaha!"

Extend copyright or become "axis of Evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess Taiwan didn't really need US support in regard to China.

How long until they roll over?

Dammit!

[FyRE666]

Jack Valenti assures me that 50 TB of pirated movies in DivX flows through the Internet each day?

Well it didn't yesterday - I was out. How does Jack Valenti know what I'm doing anyway?! Have the RIAA been haxoring my box?!

Re:Dammit!

[Reziac]

Yeah, gimme a piece of that pipe... My sorry-assed dialup spent the entire night pulling Photopaint for linux from Corel's FTP server and still only got 60 megs, 120mb to go.. lessee, at that rate, the average movie would take two weeks of overnighters. This will never do -- I want to be able to contribute my fair share to movie piracy, dammit! :)

I want to extend copyright even further

[JohnsonWax]

I'd like to see copyright extended to 2,500 years, and it should be retroactive like the previous laws. That way I can copyright the Bible and *really* rake in the bucks.

Disney thinks so small sometimes...

Re:I want to extend copyright even further

[dasheiff]

I'd like to see copyright extended to 2,500 years, and it should be retroactive like the previous laws. That way I can copyright the Bible and *really* rake in the bucks.

And then the desendents of the Grimm brothers can sue Disney.

Re:I want to extend copyright even further

[Dahan]

That way I can copyright the Bible and *really* rake in the bucks.

Um, you can't go around copyrighting other peoples' stuff... the Bible is copyright (c) God, and you know He's gonna be majorly pissed when He catches you swiping His royalty checks.

Re:I want to extend copyright even further

[Anonymous Coward]

F that, i want it extended 2,500 years, and make it proactive. I claim copyright on all future works produced by mankind for the next twenty-five centuries.
bow before me.

Re:I want to extend copyright even further

[Homburg]

Interestingly, the King James edition of the bible has a perpetual copyright in the UK (it predates modern copyright law, but is covered by its own special law). The lucky buggers who've got permission to produce copies (Cambridge University Press being one, I believe) are really raking it in.

Re:I want to extend copyright even further

[operagost]

FYI, some modern translations such as the NIV, RSV and NASB, are copyrighted.

Re:I want to extend copyright even further

[Anonymous Coward]

Pshaw...only wimps read ancients texts in the vernacular... :-p

Re:My experiences in Taiwan

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but did you peep those CHEAP ELECTRONIC GADGETS!?

IN RELATED NEWS!

[cybercomm]

US has suddenly changed it's view concering Taiwan, and after more than 50 years of protecting it, US has suddelny allowed PRC (China) To overtake it's long claimed (and lost)territory. Taiwan's pro independence president was never heard from again...

No, really this could happen, i lived in Taiwan for 5 years and it got really scarry when PRC did those missle tests... Though i doubt that US would let leading mobo manufacturers fall under China's rule :) Oh well there is always the Malaysia (where Athlon is currently made :)

Re:IN RELATED NEWS!

[cybercomm]

Grrr learn to spell =) though i wonder where will Asus go if China takes over :)

Re:IN RELATED NEWS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are criticising yourself?? What is the world comming to???

Re:IN RELATED NEWS!

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no my co-worker loves slashdot as well, apparentrly he forgot to log my username off... grrr...he'll get what he deserves. (BOFH strikes again!)

Re:IN RELATED NEWS!

[blochsound]

bruce sterling (sci fi author) wrote about this. If the US keeps messing with these guys, then they could say, we don't accept any of your IP laws, and then post ALL of our IP on the internet, thereby crippling our economy.

Hey, I was just pursuing knowledge...

[Target Practice]

of what they would not teach in college, apparently...

(from the article)
``Why should we be blamed for pursuing knowledge?'' a student protester said on television.

(and reading up above, the point of the article is...)
copyrights on works including earlier Walt Disney movies

I *suppose* you can't be blamed for pursuing knowledge, but you surely can be blamed for choosing poor sources to cite in your term paper...

Target

Re:My experiences in Taiwan

[Jair]

"Anyways, Taiwanese stink -- literally. There is no concept of personal hygiene whatsoever."

"Anyways, the one redeeming quality were the girls. I paid 1000 NT dollars (about $30 US) for a great fuck, with a 16 year old who seemed quite new and "unblemished" if you get my drift. Boy, was she tight, made all the right noises, sucked and fucked all night long and let me cum all over her."

So did she smell as well? BTW, I overheard some gangly, pimple-faced kid in my algorithms class bitch about how some Asian girl wouldn't go out with him even after using such romantic lines as "Me lub you long time". You wouldn't happen to be him would you? I'm a generous fellow, so I've devised an algorithm for Asiaphiles like you:

#include "asian porno"

while(yellow_fever) {
hit on girl who looks like Lucy Liu
quote Full Metal Jacket ||
say "ni hao ma" as opening line

if(girl says she's not a prostitute || Asian
guy comes to beat the shit out of you) {
print "Shit!"
exit(1)
}

70 Years?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really funny to me.

U.S. Redhat took Taiwan's flag out of KDE in RH 8.0.
How can Taiwan people let "lovely" Mickey and Duck out of dishes for 70 years.

See, Taiwan people just do the right thing.

Check Redhat's response:

The exclusion of the Taiwanese flag from the KDE interface in Red Hat Linux 8.0 was in no way a political statement from Red Hat. At the same
time, as a global company Red Hat must be sensitive to political differences that impact the markets it serves. One of those markets is
Mainland China, where the inclusion of the Taiwanese flag would have prevented the introduction of Red Hat Linux 8.0. Red Hat's overall goal is to broaden the global reach of open source technology and its benefits.

cut & paste instant karma - fake post

[Anonymous Coward]

This is from an old travel log site elsewhere on the net...from 1998/99...mod this guy down as flamebait.

This just in. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Countries under the influence of Communist China now say they will reject policies supporting Capitolist United States. . .

Than what's the point?

[iamacat]

Come on, do you really think Taiwanese people want to live in a poor US colony? So poor that they don't even have a say on the length of copyright in their own country? Somehow I suspect even Hong Kong government has more independence. Why should they resist becoming a relatively wealthy part of China then? On slashdot everyone can have their own opinion, but I really hope nobody in US government shares one in the parent post. It's wrong to bully small countries into submission in exchange for safety. And also, if left alone, the "fight against the PRC" will most likely be limited to grumbling on both sides, because neither of them will benefit from a war. But just think about the times when USSR was going to send missiles to Cuba or when Iraq had a fight with a US ally. And last time I checked, neither Cuba nor Kuwait were recently a part of US.

Copyrights expiring=good-Patents expiring=excelle

[WolF-g]

If patents only lasted for 10-20 years and then became public domain. Widgets and sprockets could be produced by anyone, crushing monopolies and allowing new technologies to be created from the combining of previously uncombinable ideas.

art vs. commerce

[shortbus mutiny]

The extension of copyright terms clearly is of no benefit to society as a whole, apart from the additional revenue they would generate into the United States from abroad. Literature from the period 1908 and 1928 will now be under the complete control of their owners, which are mostly major corporations. A work of art is now deprived from the view of the public, and will in many cases be unavailable completely. Copyright holders often like to hold onto their material EVEN IF they're not currently publishing and selling the work. This is because of ZERO benefit the copyright holders will receive by releasing it to the public, and the marginally possible benefit of a revival in the unpublished work's popularity. In essence art, which is undisputably helpful and necessary to the advancement of society as a whole, will either become more expensive (unaffordable), or unavailable. I fail to see how the additional money the US will make, justifies any concession from art to commerce.

Re:art vs. commerce

[mpe]

Literature from the period 1908 and 1928 will now be under the complete control of their owners, which are mostly major corporations. A work of art is now deprived from the view of the public, and will in many cases be unavailable completely.

Copyright libraries, such as the Library of Congress and the British Library, already have problems with storage. Even then they don't hold works such as films, TV, sound recordings, computer programs, etc. Copyright holders often do not take good care of works they are not activly issuing.

Re:art vs. commerce

[intermodal]

Copyright holders often do not take good care of works they are not activly issuing

I second this. I recall the troubles when I was working years ago at a software company when we were trying to make a new version of a certain early-nineties software hit game...it was hell for them to even try to get the code running again. Granted it was done, but even only several years later it became difficult to get it to where it was feasable to even begin working on code.

To their credit, after the project they did good archiving of the result, but who knows after the company was sold 3 times after I left...the current owners are probably at square one again.

Re:art vs. commerce

[Wraithlyn]

"Literature from the period 1908 and 1928 will now be under the complete control of their owners, which are mostly major corporations."

Anyone else ever think about the fact that you NEVER hear the term "minor corporations"? :)

</ponderable class="inane">

No end to the greed....

[Eric Damron]

As long as there is a nickel to be made the entertainment industry will try to extend copyright protection to maintain control.

If they find that they can no longer do that, they still have the DMCA. They simply ensure that all copies are encripted and that no unencripted broadcast goes out. That way if any copies show up someone is going to jail.

I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

I most people can accept a fifty year limit for books. However, I am afraid Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" which is from 1937 will create a stir. It should already have been released, in 1987, or is it from when the producer or director dies? Please, inform me.

Movies available on DVD in Taiwan, not in US

[Anonymous Coward]

I just purchased
"20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"
"Incredibly True Story of Two Girls in Love"

From Taiwan, through ebay. While the former is very famous, the latter is just a sexy film, unfortunately censored. Altogether, though, neither excellent film was available in DVD format, legally, in the US.

So I support Taiwan's loose intellectual laws. Increasing copyright terms means 20,000 Leagues video might not be available for another 20 years.

It seems to me the copyright profits exceed the value of the content coming from the movie industry. It is no longer a copyright "bargain," but a copyright "ripoff."

Torsten

From The China Post

[bwdunn]

Taiwan rejects some of U.S.' IP protection proposals at meeting

2002/10/12
The China Post staff

Taiwan yesterday flatly rejected the United States' request that the protection period for copyrights be extended to 70 years from the current 50 years.
Economics Minister Lin Yi-fu said the government has already imposed heavier punishments for violations against, and broadened the scope of, copyright protection. Thus, there was no reason to extend the protection period.

Speaking to reporters after a three-day meeting on intellectual property protection with representatives from Washington, the economics ministry said there is no reason for Taiwan to accede to all of the requests put forth by the United States.

But the government, said Tsai Lien-sheng, who is in charge of intellectual property-related affairs at the ministry, will definitely continue to improve its IP protection in accordance with World Trade Organization rules.

Representatives from Washington urged Taiwan to make 27 IP-related law revisions during the conference, ahead of the U.S. decision next week on whether to sign a free trade agreement with Taiwan.

Chen Chi-mai, a lawmaker from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, said some of the U.S. requests were unreasonable.

Taiwan rejected those it believed had no legal basis or was beyond what was required of a WTO member, said government officials.

In a statement, Joseph S. Papovich, assistant trade representative for services, investment and intellectual property, said Washington had hoped the discussions would lead to real progress towards the lowering of IP piracy and counterfeiting in Taiwan.

"Specifically, we discussed the importance of Taiwan revising some of its laws to conform with international IP obligations," said Papovich.

He added that Taiwan should continue to "increase its enforcement efforts by shutting down and seizing equipment from optical media plants and owners found to be pirating, stepping up its level of prosecutions against IP violators, and working to shorten delays of this process."

Papovich said Taiwan is considered one of the largest makers and exporters of pirated CDs, DVDs and other optical discs in Asia, and is perhaps one of the largest producers of such pirated discs in the world.

Tsai's deputy Lu Wen-hsiang said the U.S. representatives will bring home the proposals both sides have agreed upon for further discussions, before a formal agreement is signed in November.

The U.S. representatives were happy that Taiwan was planning to revise its laws to impose heavier punishments on photocopying for profit purposes, said Lu. According to Lu, Taiwan plans to make photocopying an offense subject to indictment, and offenders will face punishment including imprisonment between six months and five years, on top of a penalty ranging from NT$150,000 to NT$1.5 million.

But Taiwan did not agree to U.S. request that photocopying for non-profit purposes should also be made an offense subject to indictment.

Re:My experiences in Taiwan

[Dahan]

Hehe, it's funny to follow the chain :) At least they're not exact duplicates, and he does put in a bit of effort to change some of the details around...

<ProfessorCollins>I give it a B+</ProfessorCollins>

Re:My experiences in Taiwan

[Dahan]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I deducted points for "Taipei (which was no paradise itself, as that place has gone down the shitter since the Americans left)." Unlike the Hong Kong/Brits and India/Brits from his previous posts, Taiwan has never been a US territory or possession. Next time, s/Americans/Japs/. However, he gets extra credit for mentioning "chou tofu"... that's some nasty-smelling stuff :) Tasty though :)

Copyright is a Mickey Mouse game.

[Bun]

Seriously. Look at every time the copyright term has been extended, and look at which vital piece of Disney's 'intellectual property' was about to enter the public domain. It's rather sad. You can learn more about this depressing trend in our shockingly greedy erahere.

Re:Copyright is a Mickey Mouse game.

[thumbtack]

Funny part is that Mickey Mouse is also a trademark, which doesn't expire. So Disney is still protected even if the mouse doesn't go public domain.

Re:Copyright is a Mickey Mouse game.

[Bun]

That IS interesting. But even so, all that the trademark can ensure is that others will not use the Mickey Mouse character/image/name as an identifier for their business. The movies (starting with "Steamboat Willie"), cartoons, books, and the image of the character itself will enter the public domain, and be freely distributable when their copyright expires. Imagine the horror when all those daycare centres can paint Mickey's face on the wall without getting a letter from the Ghost of Walt.

A good Odd Move

[Kyusaku Natsume]

Not doing so would mean falling in the same semicolonial state that almost all Latin America suffer currently. Any sovereign state sould be looking for the best interest of their citizens, not of the american trusts.

There is any substantial difference?

[Kyusaku Natsume]

Subject says it all.

Oh, I get it...

[PingXao]

Just because I Chinese you think I pirate movie! Well that bullshit! I'm not a stereotype, OK? I eat rice and buy lots of CDs just like you! I'm not a stereotype!

(goddamned Mongolians!)

Re:Oh, I get it...

[BumbaCLot]

You tear down my shitty wall!!!!

Re:Oh, I get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why for you kick my dog and call him fuck off?

Re:Oh, I get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the spirit! I can't believe I got modded as flamebait. Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor anymore? Sheesh. I'm posting this as AC so I don't catch any more flak!

Re:Oh, I get it...

[gl4ss]

gottamng mongolians punchin thlouh my sitty filewall! i tolt you this ist the laaaast time u come punchin my sitty filewall!

Re:Copyrights expiring=good-Patents expiring=excel

[dfeist]

...and the companies had to improve if they don't want to be just vanished when their IP protection expires.

Its a continous loop

[Anonymous Coward]

From musicunited.org's FAQ page it asks
Q: "Is it legal to post music that is no longer "in print"?
A: Copyrights don't last forever. Eventually all creative work becomes part of what is called the public domain--at which point anyone and everyone is free to copy and distribute it as they please. But just because a particular recording has gone out of print doesn't mean its copyright has lapsed. If it hasn't, then you need to get permission from the copyright holder before you post it.

They say copyrights dont last forever, but the way they are lobbying for such copyright extensions, they might as well say it will last forever and will never give these out of print pieces of work a chance to be heard again.

Fundamental change in copyright laws needed

[revengance]

I could not understand why the governments should reinforce copyright laws for FREE! Because of the simplicity that copyrighted works could be copied, governments would need to spend a large amount of money reinforcing copyright laws like settle up special law enforcement units and training the law enforcement officers. Companies that depends on copyright protection does not paid more taxes than other companies which do not depends on such protections (and in a lot of cases, less taxes => think microsoft).

A simple solution would be that copyright protection should be provided freely for copyrightable works for a period of time based on the type of work. Once this period has elapsed, the copyright owner should have the options of extending his copyright for a cost. This will ensure that only owners of significant works with commerical values will be able to profit from the work and other works with less significant values will be released into the public domain. If the copyright owner does not want to exercise his right to extend the copyright, the creator of the work should have the option taking over the copyright in the case that the copyright owner and the creator of a work is not the same entity.

To ensure that the copyrighted period is limited, there should be a limit for the copyright extension period. In additional, the cost of extending the copyright should be significant to discourage the extension of copyright for medicore works and this cost should increase with the extension period.

To give an example of how this scheme could work, let consider one type of copyrightable work, music. The nature of these two type of works vary significantly. For music, the free copyright period should be longer, for example, 5 years. After 5 years, the recording company should have the option of whether to extend the copyright at a cost on a song by song basis. To extend the copyright of a song for an additional 5 years, the company would need to pay an upfront fees of say $25,000 (which should be adjusted for inflation). In addition, if at the end of the 5 years, the company needs to pay the differences between this sum and 10% of the profit derived from this song. The cost of the extension should increase as the length of extension increases. If the recording company does not want to extend the copyright, the artists should have the option of extending and thus owning the copyright. After 50 years, the extension of copyright would not be possible and the song would be relased into the public domain.

As there are different type of copyrightable works, each type of works should be handled differently. For example, the initially free copyright period for software should be shorter than for music, like say 3 years and every extension should be only 2 years for a maximum of 21 years.

Re:Fundamental change in copyright laws needed

[hhawk]

Hmm there is already a tax on the income they receive; it's called the income tax. There are other taxes that happen in most places when those works are sold, those are called sales taxes..

IMHO that's enough tax! 50 years is enough for a copyright. The only other reasonable position is 50 years or the author's life span + 10 year which ever is greater.. SO a young artist like Ms. Spears might eek out 70 to 100 years on her copyrights..

Re:Fundamental change in copyright laws needed

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies needs more "protection" than a normal company as governments will have to enforce the copyright laws. Why should the public pays for this extra protection? The cost of the "protection" should be paid only by the companies that requires it.

Yeah, well why should...

[The Fanta Menace]

...the world give in to all of the US's increasingly insane demands?

After all, they didn't vote for the US president or congress.

Re:Yeah, well why should...

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither did 53% of Americans!

How long is that going to last?

[g4dget]

Taiwan relies on the US to avoid being absorbed by China--that gives the US a lot of leverage in any negotiations. This is probably no coincidence: if the US can apply leverage to make the first Asian country cave in, the others will follow more easily.

In different words: don't expect Taiwanese opposition to last long. They know who they need to defend them and they are probably just using this as a bargaining chip in other negotiations.

I suggest 20 years

[The Creator]

I mean, if you can't make enough profits of your work in fucking 20 years...

Harmony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how no one used the "Harmony" argument to claim the US should lower its copyright protections to keep them in line with Taiwan...

Life, no more.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say much about music, movies and tv shows. I'm not involved with them. However, I am involved in writing. My feelings are that copyright on written work should last the life of the creator, and no more. None of this, "Ooh, let's pass it to the kids!" crap. Maybe I'm a bastard, but if by some random act of fate, I start raking in millions, I'd rather have my children earn their livings based on their own talents, rather than mine.

Why life, though? Why not a flat 20 years? Or 50 years?

Because - you didn't write the item in question. The author did. Say you built a house. Would you like a group of armed ruffians to throw you out of it in 20 years?

Not the same? Sure it is. People seem to forget that art is work.

Re:I agree__o

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the password?

Only one thing to do, really

[Fefe]

BOMB THEM!

How dare they not adopt national US law!?
Those terrorists are a threat to world peace and therefore we need to do a preemptive strike before they do even more damage.

Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

It always worries me whenever a Taiwan or China issue props up into slashdot, because they get overexaggerated and demonized way too severely. So here's some comparison w/ other nations.

Copyright:
* US -- 70 years.
* Japan -- 50 years.
* Taiwan -- 50 years.
However these numbers may not be set in stone. Japanese and Taiwanese politicians still waiting for American Corporate Checks.

Judicial system:
* US -- jury system.
* China -- non-jury system.
* Japan -- non-jury system.
A non-jury system != barbaric, uncivilized, evil. Japan has three judges that decide on each case, as opposed to one. On the other side, the US only has one. If the judge is concerned about their upcoming elections, they might be more willing to overturn the jury's decisions, and hand out more capital punishments.

Capital punishment:
* US -- lethal injection.
* Japan -- hanging.
* China -- firearms.
Come on, folks, murder is murder, no matter which way you slice 'em (or poison them, or hang them...) Barbarism is barbarism. Really.

Political parties:
* US -- Republicans + Democrats majority.
* Japan -- The Japanese Communist Party is close to the number one party, the Liberal Democratic Party.
* China -- Chinese Communist Party.
* France -- Socialism seems pretty strong...
The difference between the JCP and LDP are very few, just like the difference btwn R + D. While China's political situation is askew, they are not at all still the same as Communism under Mao. While ideological differences are clear in Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism, when it comes to political parties, they show convergence in evolution, and begin to show similarities in their core values.

Bible not "Copyright God"...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bible was Holy Ghost-written. 8-).

Re:Bible not "Copyright God"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Both claims are true -- they are real bugs.

So? Harmonize already...

[tlambert]

So? Harmonize already... Taiwan is 50 years after the death of the author, Australia is 50 years after the death of the author. What part of "Don't think originally, and adopt everyone else's laws" doesn't the U.S. understand? I guess it only works with European laws...

I would say that this was an example of "Some pigs being more equal than others", but of course, since the Sonny Bono extension, "Animal Farm" is back to being copywritten...

-- Terry

Not designed for profit

[OSSturi]

Copyright was designed to give the creators of some kind of intellectual property a reasonable amount of time to profit from their creation (...)

No, the copyright (America and GB) and the "droit d'auteur" (continental Europe) were in the beginning designed to give the state control over the published material and to build up monopolies for profit. After the french and american revolution the laws were explicitly changed to the benefit of the whole society. The society benefits if there is a lot of published work. The privileges given to the authors were only meant to ensure that there is someone who does publish. If they in the end profit or go bankrupt isn't of interest to the public as long as people still publish.
The goal is to maximize the overall profit for the public and never ever for the author or the rights industry. Naturally the authors can profit from this system, but that's not it's aim.

The American Empire

[Ektanoor]

For quite long we have been discussing the probability that the US becomes an empire. Well, some may state that the empire already exists but it is still a controversial point. However in the light of recent events we can say that the empire will be and when.

What is the fundamental motto of the US? - American Values. The American Values where mostly created and fundamented along the wars of Independence against the Brittish crown. Later these values were "exported" all over the world as an ideal of society and living. By doing this, the US didn't ask for much, it gave it mostly shareware or even freeware to everyone. And it didn't care too much to hold up its copyrights -we have clear examples of it on the French Revolution and several other Revolutions that happened all over.

Meanwhile, considering the recent events, we are pretty sure that this thing will not stay permanently for free. As copyright lifespan extends further and further, there will be a moment when the US may claim back its rights for Democracy, Freedom of Speech and Citizens Rigths. Considering the actual rate - that copyrights expand for 20 years more every 5 years, then, in the middle of the XXI century we will see the American values being covered by copyright laws. Then, we probably will see the American President saying "Ok, folks, you had too much fun with American Democracy for Free but that's over... time to pay the fees... Every vote - 1 cent, every word - 2 cents, every right - 1 dollar. And note that we are being cheap..."

More

[FooBarWidget]

Disney even stole stories from various Japanese anime series.

Lion King - based on "Kimba the White Lion", an anime series from the '60s (do you see the resemblance? "Simba" - "Kimba").
Atlantis - based on "Nadia and the Secret of Blue Water", made by Studio Gainax (which was based on books by Jules Verne, but at least Gainax give credit).

Re:More

[Reziac]

Now, would Disney like to explain to us how "Lion King" is NOT copyright infringement? After all, from descriptions I've read, it's certainly close enough that were the situation reversed, Disney would be suing the Kimba producers.

Re:More

[FooBarWidget]

1) The small copyright holders of Kimba fear Disney's huge army of lawyers.

2) Kimba's copyright holders will recieve bad publicity. Most people think: "Disney rules, Everything Else sucks!", simply because they've never heard of "Kimba". The vast majority of the population will flame down Kimba's copyright holders.
This is just like why most "average users" flame down Linux and say that it sucks just because they don't know much about it.

Re:More

[alphaseven]

In Disney's defense, Osamu Tezuka (the man behind Kimba) was heavily influenced by Disney animation, so you could argue he was imitating the Disney style.

Re:More

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is probably the main reason why Disney isn't getting the shit sued out of them for stealing his work...

Re:More

[FooBarWidget]

There's a difference between being inspired by a drawing style and copy&modify a story...

MY EVIL PLAN FOR WORLD DOMINATION!

[Anonymous Coward]

i shall move my servers to taiwan and design my non-disney mickey mouse movie! muahahaha!
victory is mine!

Re:So? Harmonize already...

[tempfile]

Hmm, that's where the dog bites its own tail. I always thought the EU would blindly adopt US legislation.

Who loses money?

[deadkarma]

Many articles about this term extension say that the entertainment industry will lose millions/billions if the terms are not extended.
What a crock.
Based on how famous actors/directors/musicians are living, I'd say they've got more than thier fair share, and if their works are still profitable after 20+ years, I say the public has paid enough money and it should belong to the public.

Americans! Help Taiwan!

[Anonymous Coward]

Write your representatives and tell them that they shouldn't push Taiwan on this issue.

I can't do this myself, I'm european. Does anyone know what the EU says about this?

Re:Americans! Help Taiwan!

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily, in theory the EU is rich, powerful and advanced enough to tell the US where to get off. Unfortunately, it's still not quite united enough to manage it. Still, in time... And the EU doesn't have the US's imperial levels of defence spending to hobble it.

If you wanna spout crap, don't do it on our behalf

[ShieldW0lf]

What a moronic comment. Open souce software will earn you plenty of money IF SOMEONE HIRES YOU TO BUILD IT.

Businessman - "I need this problem fixed. There isn't any software (open or otherwise) that does what I need."

Programmer - "I'll fix it for you. I'll be using a bunch of open source code in my solution. This will save you time and money. Once the solution is done, you can use it for as long as you need, you just can't sell it. It will take x months to finish and cost x."

Businessman - "Sounds good."

Is this too complex for you? It may be... you seem a little thick...

Copyright hitmen?

[yerricde]

When you go, the Copyright Goes.

That'd put a tremendous strain on U.S. states' police to enforce the laws against murder. I advocate a fixed term of x years, not life of the author plus x years.

Peter Pan was licensed

[yerricde]

Peter Pan from J.M. Barrie

No, Peter Pan was probably licensed. GOSH, a hospital in London, holds a statutory perpetual copyright on Peter Pan throughout the UK (I'm not sure about the EU). Either Disney licenses Peter Pan, or Disney can't sell Peter Pan in DVD region 2.

"Life of the author" for a corporate work

[yerricde]

As long as corporations are allowed to own copyrights (and otherwise enjoy rights of ownership), then copyright (and domain name) extension will be indefinite

Not exactly. Copyright laws will either apply a fixed term of say 25 years plus whatever instead of life of the author plus whatever to corporate works (US law), or they will compute the life of the last surviving author based on (e.g. for films) the director, the screenwriter, and a couple other specified people (EU law).

In other news...

[Cytlid]

... congress will debate wether or not to implement the Bush administration's new plan to attack Taiwan...

Why should we be blamed for pursuing knowledge?

[fire-eyes]

Outside the Board of Foreign Trade where the negotiation was held, dozens of college students protested against the U.S. demand, shouting ``Knowledge can't be monopolised.''

``Why should we be blamed for pursuing knowledge?'' a student protester said on television.

This is really great to hear. It sounds very much like the common call in the USA of "Information wants to be free".

It's nice to know that such different cultures at their cores still value the same things.

A few problems here...

[waltc]

We have elections far more often than copyrights go extinct, whether it's copyrights under the old law, the newer law, or the law being debated right now.

Congress can repeal anything it passes. Laws are repealed with regularity.

The American President's chief power under the Constitution is that of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, but even that power has been hamstrung by Congress. The President is more a figurehead than anything else, and a lightning rod when times get bad.

The President has no control over the Supreme Court, remember. In fact, the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the President are the three branches of government in the US. If the Supreme Court upholds the Constitutionality of the of the copyright law it will only be because it finds no Constitutional grounds to prevent Congress from enacting such a law.

The President has no power to pass laws himself. Legislation requires a majority in both Houses of Congress. Even if the President vetos a law, Congress may override that veto.

Does the US Federal government have too much control and power over the lives of its citizens? I would say yes. However, it must never be forgotten who put the politicians in office who have enacted these laws--voting citizens, and those citizens who did not vote.

The crisis that bodies like the Supreme Court always face in a Democracy is in deciding which shall prevail, the will of the people, or the Constitution of the United States. Even in an American Democracy, the two are not always the same.

This is a far more prickly issue...

[hklingon]

... than is readily apparent. Some stuff, like Windows 3.1, will be completely useless in another 60 or so years. Do you think anyone will even be able to find the source code then?
I'm not even sure the law is such that you are encouraged to release computer program source code-- but wouldn't that be something? But a kind-of long copyright term on other stuff, like.. great works of society (a tiny percentage of books, etc) deserve a longer copyright term. But what about The A-Team. The copyright on the A-Team should have long since expired, the same as Windows 3.1. www.archive.org contains a lot of early films.. but they complain that movie studios destroy the originals when a movie is about to expire... effectively hampering its descent into public domain. Extend this into a DRM enabled future, where it is unlikely that many people will have an "unauthorized" work, and media companies can revoke all DRM liceses just before something expires and then (digitally) destroy the only copy. This is highly irritating, wouldn't you say? But the examples here suggest that yet more complex laws need to exist to deal with (a) copyrighted works that suck need not be copyrighted long (b) two-part copyrighted things (i.e. programs and program source code (c) legal recourse for companies that knowingly inhibit works entering the public domain.

Isn't Copyright good?

[Binarybrain]

I read Just for Fun, the biography of Linus. If Im not mistaken he actaully says copyrights are good. Its what allows us open sourcers to enforce the GPL.

I still don't understand the difference between patents and copyright.

Re:Isn't Copyright good?

[borgheron]

Copyright is good only when it isn't abused, just like patents. Recently some very large corporate interests (read Disney) have been lobbying hard to extend copyright so that certain works would not make it into the public domain. These companies convinced congress in 1998 to extend copyright another 20 years (The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998).

Copyrights and patents were originally put in place to spur innovation since the idea was to confer onto the artist (in the case of copyright) or the inventor (in the case of patents) a monopoly on the work for a limited time only. After this limited time, the work would pass into the public domain for anyone to use w/o paying a royalty.

Recently, however, these systems have become twisted and perverted to the liking of huge corporate interests which have no desire to allow the little guy to compete. Think of how Disney has made billions off of public domain characters such as Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast. All of these were fairy tales 100 years before Disney "created" them. Now that early renditions of some of Disney's work is was about to pass into the public domain Disney lobbied hard to extend copyright.

The idea of the work passing into the public domain was so that other artists can create new works based on it w/o a royalty. Disney and others, have chosen to rob the masses of what the founding fathers guaranteed.

- The difference between patent and copyright

A patent secures the rights to a given invention. More specifically it gives the patent holder the ability to prevent others from using the invention for a term of 20 years from the date the patent is issued or 17 years from the date it was filed.

The idea here was to allow the inventor time to build market and sell his invention without anyone being able to copy it.

Patent differs from copyright in the sense that, with a patent a set of ideas or "claims" are covered whereas copyright covers an entire work, such as a book or a piece of music.

- Infringement

Patent infringement is VERY easy. As stated above a patent consists of a number of claims. A good patent lawyer will try to make the claims as broad as possible to widen the coverage of the patent. In order to infringe a patent all you need to do is implement an invention which contains a significant portion of *1* claim from the patent and you can be sued.

Copyright infringement is little harder For copyright you must copy a considerable portion of the work to infringe. This is why quoting a book in a paper for college doesn't constitute infringement.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a copyright or patent attorney. The above should not be taken as legal advice.

Later, GJC

P.S. Please see the links in below for more info on how patents on software are harmful.

fuck US coorporations ... way go taiwan !

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people are sick of US cooporations trying to make money from things that are morally not theirs .... i like this initiative ...

go taiwan !

bomb 'em

[Hooya]

what? taiwan won't follow orders from the US? time to carpet bomb 'em.

Re:Disney Greed

[adius]

I know will probably be moderated as offtopic... Disney has alot of power down here in Florida, they even help push a law that makes it illegal for anyone to sell tickets that have unused days. Many Disney tourists can not use their all their days on their tickets so they have no choice but bear the expense by keeping it or become a criminal by selling it. The reason Disney doesn't like it is: Buying used tickets can help save a family hundreds of dollars that doesn't go back into Mickey's pockets. My opinion, it basically corporate greed.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the fucking article!

life + x years?

[Vengeance_au]

How long until we see a rival corperation bump off the author to get the work into the public domain quicker?

God not in the copyright equation

[FreeUser]

Um, you can't go around copyrighting other peoples' stuff... the Bible is copyright (c) God,

Actually, the Bible is (c) a lot of crazy antisocial misfits and (c) some more moderate, less antisocial misfits, although to incorporate them all, including (c) a very social, prince gone bad and done turned revolutionary (Moses) you'd have to extend copyright terms to 6000 years or so.

Of course, the Catholic Church would probably own the copyrights on much of the new testament (and portions of the old) which bear little resemblence to the original gospels and torah, assuming of course there is no estate of the aforementioned Crazy Antisocial Misfits to sue the church for copyright violation in their own right.

And whether Moses was a raving, hallucinating lunatic driven mad by too much sun and too much sand (and lamenting his lost life of privelege), or whether he was in fact spoken to by a superior being (divine or otherwise), the fact is that the books of Genesis et. al. are his writings paraphrasing the alleged words of said being, and not the being itself. Therefor the copyright would belong to Moses as the authoring reporter of the event, not God as merely a participant.

In other words, God wouldn't enter the copyright equation regardless, even if he did have the bad taste to exist.

Death of the Author Blows Chunks

[FreeUser]

So? Harmonize already...

Agreed.

Taiwan is 50 years after the death of the author, Australia is 50 years after the death of the author. What part of "Don't think originally, and adopt everyone else's laws" doesn't the U.S. understand? I guess it only works with European laws...

Feh. Any law that expires a patent based on the authors death is stupid and flawed. You should be able to tell whether or not a book is in the public domain simply by looking at its copyright date.

8 years, 10 years, 14 years, 50 years, whatever, it should be from the time of the initial copyright, not some other event (like a human death) that cannot be determined by looking at the work itself.

Oh, and for good measure, copyright should only bestow tax incentives, not monopoly rights of any kind. Acknowledgement (no plagerism permitted) should be decoupled from copyright, and have no expiration (after all, George Lucas didn't suddenly stop being the creator of Star Wars simply because his copyright expired in 4078 when congress forgot to extend copyrights again in their fall session, due to being distracted in passing their legislation funding the War on Unauthorized Thought).

Bush is fairly supportive of Taiwan actually...

[golemite]

Remember this from last year?

The hubbub began after Bush told ABC News Wednesday that Beijing needs to understand that the U.S. would "do whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan. That was a dramatic break with Washington's traditional ambiguity on the question, designed in part to avoid emboldening Taiwanese leaders to declare independence. In a subsequent CNN interview, Bush appeared to backtrack, and emphasized Washington's continued opposition to Taiwan's independence and its belief in a "One China" policy.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,10 76 42,00.html

Re:Bush is fairly supportive of Taiwan actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush might be personally but the foreign policy of the USA is still geared more towards China than Taiwan. It has been since Nixon, got more so through Clinton and nothing has changed under Bush - remember his tightrope walking over the sale of Aegis boats and subs at the start of the Bush presidency? Taiwan did not get all the arms they'd asked for, because to so so would have upset the strategic balance in that region against China.

Complete?

[Kwil]

What about Robin Hood?

Re:Copyrights expiring=good-Patents expiring=excel

[kaphka]

If patents only lasted for 10-20 years and then became public domain. Widgets and sprockets could be produced by anyone, crushing monopolies and allowing new technologies to be created from the combining of previously uncombinable ideas.

Ah, yes... if only we lived in such a magical fantasy world

Good for Taiwan.

[Maul]

It really makes me embarassed as an American to see our government trying bully other countries into making their laws more like ours. I'm glad Taiwan is resisting this.

yes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

> the Bible is copyright (c) God
but what if i own the trademark - God(tm)?

Commies! Commies!

[Anonymous Coward]

The commies reject a commie law that originated in the supposedly "democratic" west. How ironic is that. HAHAHAHA

Cuba

[bluGill]

I can think of only one: Cuba. The US supported Castro's takeover of Cuba, and Castro backstabed the US immeadiatly afterwords.

The US made several (unsuccessful) attampts to get rid of Castro, but that was after Castro betrayed the US.

Re:Cuba

[Lemmy Caution]

The US most certainly did not support Castro's taking over of Cuba. Batista enjoyed extensive support from American corporations, the American mafia, and the US government.

Yeah, sure.

[jotaeleemeese]

China has to be on its best behavior until the Olympics in Beijing, and you can bet that beating up on a smaller democratic and practically sovereign state would be frowned upon by the international community and probably get the Olympics yanked.

Like when the 1980 Moscow games got yanked about the Afghanistan issue.

Or Los Angeles 1984 got yanked after Grenada (I may be ultra-trolling here because I don;t remember what was first, nevertheless the point is the games will carry one vene if there is a boycott by a few nations, no matter how powerful they are).

Re:Commies! Commies!

[cramped bowels]

YO ! Taiwan is *not*, I repeat, *not* Communist - get your facts straight.

How about 14 + 14?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Fourteen years for the copyright, plus the option to renew it for another 14?
Copyright Act of 1790.

The difference between math and business

[hey!]

Someone else who does not really understand the concept of present value

Somebody else who doesn't understand the concept of the discount rate.

The problem is that future revenues from investment in books and art works are not like annuities. They aren't guaranteed any rate of return. Therefore as periods being considered stretch beyond five years or so, the expected future income has to be adjusted downward to affect the cumulative effect of future uncertainties.

Of course, there are times when investors forget the affect of uncertainty in their calucations, in which case things can be overvalued (e.g. the dot com bubble). However, even the most conservative investors do not consider the affect of income fifty years in the future, even on conservative and reliable investments. In fact on speculative investments like books and music, I doubt that potential income even five years in the future carries much weight.

The current debate is not about far future revenues of new works, but, near term returns on proven commodities like Mickey Mouse. It's a different kettle of fish.

Last Post!

[alpg]

**** GROWTH CENTER REPAIR SERVICE

For those who have had too much of Esalen, Topanga, and Kairos. Tired of
being genuine all the time? Would you like to learn how to be a little
phony again? Have you disclosed so much that you're beginning to avoid
people? Have you touched so many people that they're all beginning to
feel the same? Like to be a little dependent? Are perfect orgasms
beginning to bore you? Would you like, for once, not to express a
feeling? Or better yet, not be in touch with it at all? Come to us. We
promise to relieve you of the burden of your great potential.

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...